The Balkan Conflicts Research Team is producing superb, hard-hitting and intellectually provocative Twitters about Srebrenica and the Hague Tribunal. We highly recommend them to our readers who may follow them by visiting their Twitter account at: Balkan Conflicts Research Team@ResearchTeam
The Sham of the Hague Tribunal: The ICTY’s illusion of justice
How has the ICTY passed itself off as a court of justice?
Mainly by staging very long trials. The author John Laughland has calculated that the transcripts of the Milosevic trial, which had been running for more than 4 years when his death ended proceedings, would take a researcher working a 35-hour week more than 7 years to read. The sheer volume of material clearly deterred many journalists and academics from attempting a close analysis of the Hague Tribunal.
But surely the length of ICTY trials reflected care and thoroughness?
Not really. ICTY trials were not known for their focus and coherence. The prosecution cases seldom followed the indictments. Many witnesses were called, but often it was far from clear where the case was going.
How then did the ICTY return so many guilty verdicts?
It’s a mystery. ICTY prosecutors entirely failed to present a case with clear, hard evidence against defendants. The world believes that conclusive evidence was heard to support the ICTY’s account of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. It wasn’t. Every key allegation was unsupported by proven fact. None of the core forensic or DNA evidence was made available to the court – just assertions from the evidence-gathering body, the ICMP, which were reported and deemed to be incontestable fact.
That can’t be true?
A court that is established illegally, fails to follow even the illegal brief it was given, and changes the rules as it goes along to give itself latitude to cheat and falsify at every turn – that kind of court can do anything.
How does the ICTY maintain a high reputation?
From its early days, the ICTY told the world how good it was. As the major cases came to trial, it gave facilities to journalists to encourage positive coverage. When the fighting ended in Yugoslavia, the ICTY’s investigatory agency, the International Commission for Missing Persons, offered its expertise to help identify victims of the huge Asian Tsunami. The ICTY then launched its legacy project to spread a message of extraordinary success in extending the range and effectiveness of humanitarian intervention. All these initiatives have been successful in surrounding the ICTY with a facade of integrity and respectability.
How did all this happen?
Many people believed there was a terrible humanitarian crisis happening. People believed the UN was a force for good and could be trusted to run a court to the highest standards. People had faith that journalists and politicians were honourable and well-informed.
Why do they get away with it?
Politicians and journalists have closed ranks to insist that their version of the Balkan wars was right and that international intervention was a triumph. Those who try to challenge this are invariably attacked and, in some countries, denounced as “genocide deniers” at every opportunity.